MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973016880 · doi:10.7202/042171ar

La révocation d'un agent et le statut d'intermédiaire de commerce

2005· article· en· W1973016880 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicole L’Heureux

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessObligationLaw and economicsAgency (philosophy)MandateIndemnitySubject (documents)Function (biology)LawPolitical sciencePhilosophySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The revocation of an agent frequently raises the question of the legal basis for the right to indemnity by agent so revoked. The existence of such a right as well as the determination of the amount of the indemnity depend on the nature of the relationship between the agent and his client. In the case of an independent agent, this relationship is of a special nature. His function differs from that of a servant and that of an independent trader, who are both currently called agents. The indépendant agent deals with third parties for a client, but does not himself supply the goods and services in which he trades. The indépendant agent, to whom is recognized the status of commercial intermediary, has a function which is characterized by his own obligational contents. He brings to the execution of his work the duties of a professional. He is subject to an obligation of diligence and, because of his professional status, incurs a certain liability towards the third party he deals with. The qualification of mandate, often given to his contract, cannot take into account the extensive obligations imposed on the agent, particularly the fact that he makes a profession of his agency and that he has a special interest in the success of the affair he négociâtes. The reference to rules of a civil nature in matters that relate to business creates some confusion. The nature of the relationship between the agent and his client is challenged by the notion of common interest which grants to the agent a right to keep up the contract and maintain goodwill. The proposition of the Civil Code Revision Office for the revision of the legal categories has the advantage of giving new definitions to contracts which are characterized by the autonomy of the obligee in the execution. In the case of the independent agent, it will favour a qualification more adequate of the relationship between him and his client. The revocation of the agent would then be treated like the revocation in other contracts in which work is done in the interest of the other party.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0220.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207